Myron C. Kauk Page 1

Matthew 2:13-15 and the Intention of the Old Testament Author

Presented to the Eastern Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society Lynchburg, Virginia, April 1-2, 2016

by Myron C. Kauk

Liberty University School of Divinity

1 When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. (Hos. 11:1 ESV)

13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him." 14 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son." (Matt. 2:13-15 ESV) The reference to Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:13-15 is one of the more intractable cases of the New

Testament use of the Old Testament. Many would agree with the assessment of Craig Blomberg that

Hosea 11:1 is a reference to the exodus, pure and simple.1 According to R. T. France, It is a statement

about the past, not a prediction of the future. It is therefore sometimes argued that Matthews use of

the text here is quite illegitimate, transferring to the future and to a different individual son what God

said about his son Israel in the past.2 Richard Longenecker refers to Matthews exegetical technique as

pesher and says that Matthew is rereading his Old Testament from an eschatologically realized and

messianic perspective.3 Peter Enns calls it a highly theologized, noncontextual, reading of the OT.4

According to Enns, It is the reality of the risen Christ that drove *Matthew+ to read Hosea in a new

1 Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale

and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 7. 2 R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 80.

3 Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 128.

4 Peter Enns, Fuller Meaning, Single Goal: A Christotelic Approach to the New Testament Use of the Old in Its First-

Century Interpretive Environment, in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 198

Myron C. Kauk Page 2

way.5 According to Martin Pickup, It is futile to try to defend Matthews messianic interpretation of

Hos 11:1 on grammatical-historical ground.6 He refers to Matthews technique as atomistic and

midrashic.7

Robert Thomas calls this an Inspired Sensus Plenior Application of the Hosea text.8 In his view,

NT writers could assign such new meanings authoritatively because of the inspiration of what they

wrote.9 Thus, the new meaning which Matthew assigns based on the Hosea text is not a grammatical-

historical interpretation of the Old Testament passage. It is a new revelation which did not exist as far

as humans were concerned10 until it was revealed to Matthew. So, it is a grammatical-historical

interpretation of the New Testament passage.

A common expedient is to call Matthews handling of the Hosea text typological.11 But not

everyone who uses this designation means the same thing by it. For some, typology is entirely

retrospective. It is simply an exegetical technique used by New Testament authors that allows them to

discover meaning in the Old Testament text which the Old Testament author may not have intended or

understood.12 It is a historical correspondence that is recognized after the fact. Admittedly, some would

argue that the typological meaning which the New Testament author discerns is really in the Old

Testament text, either in the sense that it was intended by the divine author, or in the sense that it

5 Enns, Fuller Meaning, 201.

6 Martin Pickup, New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament: The Theological Rationale of Midrashic

Exegesis, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51.2 (2008): 372. 7 Pickup, 374.

8 Robert L. Thomas, The New Testament Use of the Old Testament, The Masters Seminary Journal 13.1 (2002):

86. Cf. John H. Walton, Inspired Subjectivity and Hermeneutical Objectivity, The Masters Seminary Journal 13.1 (2002): 74-75. 9 Thomas, New Testament Use, 87.

10 Thomas, New Testament Use, 87.

11 Blomberg, Matthew, 7-8; Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (Nashville: B & H, 1992), 67; France, Matthew, 76-81;

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody, 1985), 47-53; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 43; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13 (Dallas: Word, 1993), 36-37; John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 123; David L. Turner, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 90-91; Grant R. Osborne, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 99. 12

David Baker, Typology and the Christian Use of the Old Testament, in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 313-330; William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 182-185.

Myron C. Kauk Page 3

results from a canonical reading of the text in light of later revelation. But when such correspondences

are only recognizable retrospectively, then typology is robbed entirely of its prophetic value. Walter

Kaiser rightly objects,

Unless the type is intended by the OT writer and is discernible from the normal practice of grammar, syntax, and its related modes of discerning meaning, the rest of what is classified under typology must be categorized as a form of applying and showing significance to some of the patterns in Gods salvific activity over the ages. At best then, such nonobjective types are our modern illustrations rather than divine predictions.13

A better approach is to limit the designation typology to cases where the meaning adduced by the

New Testament author is inherently present in the Old Testament text, where the typology is

prospective rather than retrospective.14 This distinguishes typology from mere analogy or illustration

and preserves its prophetic and apologetic value.

The premise of this paper is that Matthew has correctly interpreted Hosea 11:1 and that the

meaning which Matthew finds in Hosea is the meaning which Hosea intended. Affirming this seems

critical to a high view of Scripture and a proper hermeneutic. If Matthew has misinterpreted Hosea or

used a faulty hermeneutic, the doctrine of inerrancy falls. No appeal to a supposed sensus plenior can

rescue this. Verbal plenary inspiration insists that the Holy Spirit worked through the human authors to

produce Scripture, not around them.15 Consequently, what follows here is a survey of four previous

attempts to understand Matthews quotation from Hosea 11:1 from this perspective. Insights from

these four provide a foundation that will help develop a more robust understanding of Hosea 11:1 in its

own context and therefore, a better understanding of how Matthew uses this passage.

Walter Kaiser

13

Kaiser, The Uses of the Old Testament, 106. 14

Kaiser, The Uses of the Old Testament, 103-110; Henry A. Virkler, Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 183-190. 15

Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1989), 160; Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 39; R. Albert Mohler, Jr., When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy, in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R. A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 29-58.

Myron C. Kauk Page 4

In 1985, Walter Kaiser argued that There is no distortion or abuse of the context of Hosea by

Matthew; nor has he added his own interpretation to the text.16 He begins by analyzing the structure

of the book of Hosea. Following three autobiographical chapters, the book of Hosea contains three

charges against the people of Israel in chapters 4-14 (4:2-6:3; 6:4-11:11; 11:12-14:9) and each of these

ends with a word of hope. Hosea 11:1-11 occurs at the end of Hoseas second indictment and

emphasizes that even though Israel would be punished for their covenant unfaithfulness, they would be

preserved by Gods love. Kaiser sees an analogous relationship between Gods preservation of Israel

and His preservation of Jesus through His early years, but this by itself does not account for Matthews

use of the passage.

Key to Kaisers understanding is the realization that by the time of Hosea the words my son

had become technical terminology for the Davidic ruler (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7). Kaiser argues that the

terms could be applied either collectively to the nation as the object of Gods love and election or

specifically to the final representative person who was to come in Christ.17 Kaiser suggests that Hosea

writes with an awareness of this oscillation between the corporate and the individual son.

Kaiser suggests that in Hosea, Egypt functioned as a symbol for the place of bondage and

oppression, regardless of where it was located.18 In Hosea 11:1, it is clearly a geographical designation,

but in Hosea 8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:3-5; 12:3 it is used metaphorically for Assyria. Kaiser finds significance in

the fact that Matthew places the quotation from Hosea at the point of Jesus entrance into Egypt and

not His departure. He argues that the main point of the quotation is Jesus preservation through

oppression and not His return from Egypt. He concludes, This is biblical typology at its best, for it

16

Kaiser, The Uses of the Old Testament, 53. 17

Kaiser, The Use of the Old Testament, 49. 18

Kaiser, The Use of the Old Testament, 50.

Myron C. Kauk Page 5

begins with a clear divine designation, is limited in its sphere of operation to the act of preservation and

deliverance, and is circumscribed in its effects.19

John Sailhamer

In 2001, John Sailhamer sought to build on Brevard Childs canonical understanding of the book

of Hosea. His thesis was that much of what Childs understood from a canonical perspective could be

demonstrated to already have been present to Hosea within his historical context. He argues that

Hosea himself already understood his words in 11:1 metaphorically and messianically.20 Sailhamer

suggests that Hosea was making a reference not to the event itself but to the event as construed in the

Pentateuch. Hosea approached the exodus as an exegete. Hosea was involved in what we today call

intertextuality. He referred to the meaning of the exodus, not from his own historical understanding of

that event, but rather from the viewpoint of the canonical Pentateuch.21 He mentions a number of

places in the book of Hosea where Hoseas message is grounded in a careful and conscious exegesis of

the Pentateuchal text22 but settles on the Balaam oracles in Numbers 23:22 and 24:8 as the key texts

which relate to Hosea 11:1. Sailhamer notes that despite the similarity in these two verses there is a

critical difference between them. Whereas Numbers 23:22a states in the plural that God brings them

out of Egypt ( Numbers 24:8a states in the singular that God brings him out of ,(

Egypt ( Sailhamer notes that all the other pronouns in Numbers 23:21-22 are .(

singular, referring to the people of Israel as a collective singular, but the plural pronoun in Numbers

23:22a makes it clear that the corporate entity is intended. Meanwhile, the singular pronoun in

Numbers 24:8a cannot refer to the corporate entity since it is preceded in verse 7 which speaks of an

individual king who will be higher than Agag and whose kingdom will be exalted. Sailhamer suggests

19

Kaiser, The Use of the Old Testament, 53. 20

John H. Sailhamer, Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15, Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001): 89. 21

Sailhamer, Hosea 11:1, 91. 22

Sailhamer, Hosea 11:1, 91.

Myron C. Kauk Page 6

that in Numbers 23, Balaam looked back at the exodus as the grounds for Gods future salvation of his

people Israel but in Numbers 24, Balaam viewed the coming of a future king as a new exodus.23

Hosea 11 is building on Numbers 23-24. Thus when Matthew quotes from this passage he is not

engaged in typological exegesis of the Hosea text. Rather, he was drawing the sensus literalis from the

book of Hosea and it, in turn, was drawn from Hoseas exegesis of the sensus literalis of the

Pentateuch.24

Greg Beale At the 2015 Shepherds Conference, Greg Beale presented a paper in which he sought to defend

the appropriateness of Matthews use of Hosea 11:1. He acknowledged that there are three main

problems with the passage. First, it is argued that Hosea is a mere historical reflection, but Matthew

clearly understands it as a direct prophecy.25 Second, what Hosea attributes to the nation Israel,

Matthew attributes to the individual Jesus.26 And third, the Hosea 11:1 reference to Israel coming out

of Egypt first introduces the holy family with Jesus entering into Egypt.27 He argues that Matthew

employs a typological interpretation of Hosea 11:1, but not one that is merely retrospective. He argues

that the typological interpretation which Matthew sees is already inherently present in the Hosea text

and that it can be discerned by considering the entire chapter of Hosea 11 and the entire book.28

Beale points specifically to Hosea 11:10-11, which speak of a restoration of Israel from several

lands, including Egypt. He sees here an allusion to Numbers 23:22, 24; 24:8-9. This is the only other

passage in the OT which both speaks of God bringing Israel out of Egypt and compares Israels deliverer

to a lion. He suggests that the lion of 11:10 may be the eschatological kingly leader of Israels

23

Sailhamer, Hosea 11:1, 95. 24

Sailhamer, Hosea 11:1, 91. 25

G. K. Beale, The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15, in The Inerrant Word, ed. John MacArthur (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 210. 26

Beale, The Use of Hosea 11:1, 210. 27

Beale, The Use of Hosea 11:1, 210. 28

Beale, The Use of Hosea,11:1, 212-214.

Myron C. Kauk Page 7

return.29 The main point of Hosea 11:1-11 is to present Israels exodus from Egypt as a pattern that will

be repeated at the end of Israels history.

Beale finds other references to the exodus from Egypt in Hosea 2:15; 12:9, 13; 13:4 and

references to a return to Egypt in Hosea 1:11; 7:11, 16; 8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:5, which leads him to ask, If one

were to have asked Hosea if he believed that God was sovereign over history and that God had designed

the first exodus from Egypt as a historical pattern that foreshadowed a second exodus from Egypt,

would he not likely have answered yes?30 This Exodus will be led by one head ( according to (

Hosea 1:11 and the one head is identified in Hosea 3:5 as a latter-day Davidic king.31

Beale understands the references to Egypt in Hosea 11:5, 11 literally.32 Thus, Hosea 11 begins

with a reference to Israels past exodus from Egypt (v 1), proceeds to a mention of Israels return to

Egypt (v 5) and concludes with a reference to Israels future return from Egypt (v 11).33 With this in mind,

Matthews placement of the quotation from Hosea 11:1 at the departure to Egypt is appropriate since a

return to Egypt is an integral part of the typological picture.34 Matthews reference to Hosea 11:1 is also

appropriate because Hosea 11 is not a mere historical reference but a forward looking reference to a

future exodus. And Matthews application of this passage to Jesus is also appropriate because He is

properly identified as the messianic leader of that future exodus

Abner Chou At the same conference, Abner Chou also presented a paper in which he argued that Matthew

gave appropriate consideration to the Old Testament context of Hosea 11:1. Chou insightfully asks why

Matthew chooses to reference Hosea to talk about the exodus instead of going back to the exodus

narrative itself. His answer is that Matthew chooses to use Hosea because Hosea is already a theological 29

Beale, The Use of Hosea 11:1, 216. 30

Beale, The Use of Hosea 11:1, 217. 31

Beale, The Use of Hosea 11:1, 223. 32

Beale, The Use of Hosea 11:1, 227-230. 33

Beale, The Use of Hosea 11:1, 221. 34

Beale, The Use of Hosea 11:1, 222.

Myron C. Kauk Page 8

reflection on the exodus and not bare historical reference. In context, Hosea 11:1 does not merely

discuss history, but history as the precedent for Gods future workings.35 Hosea is building on Exodus

4:22 where the people of Israel are first called my firstborn son. But the historical exodus from Egypt

has already undergone considerable theological reflection prior to Hosea. Chou references Psalm 74:10-

15; 77:14-15; 80:16 where the first exodus establishes a pattern for future deliverances. In Hosea 11

the first exodus demands a new exodus led by the Messiah.36 Subsequent to Hosea, this theological

reflection continues in passages such as Micah 7:14-15 and Isaiah 43:1-21. Matthew stands at the end

of this trajectory, making use of the entire history of interpretation, but without doing violence to what

Hosea stated. Matthew sees that God saved Jesus from Herod in his own personal exodus to

demonstrate that God loves Jesus as much as he loved his son, Israel. This proves that Jesus is Israels

true representative and King, who will lead them in a new exodus.37

Towards a Solution Kaiser, Sailhamer, Beale, and Chou appear to be on the right track. When greater attention is

paid to the larger context in Hosea, Matthews use of the passage makes a lot more sense.

First, it is abundantly clear that the exodus from Egypt serves throughout the Old Testament as

a typological pattern for future deliverance. Hoseas reference to the exodus partakes of this typological

perspective. His reference to the historical exodus is not merely historical but forward looking since the

people who came out of Egypt once, will return to Egypt (11:5) and from there will be delivered once

again (11:11). This remains the case whether Egypt is understood literally in verses 5 and 1138 or

metaphorically as a reference to Assyria.39 The historical exodus envisions a future exodus. So, when

35

Abner Chou, Is Inerrancy Inert? Closing the Hermeneutical Loophole, in The Inerrant Word, ed. John MacArthur (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 235. 36

Chou, Is Inerrancy Inert, 236. 37

Chou, Is Inerrancy Inert, 235-236. 38

Beale, The Use of Hosea 11:1, 220-221, 227-230. 39

Kaiser, The Uses of the Old Testament, 50-51.

Myron C. Kauk Page 9

Matthew relates the descent of Jesus into Egypt to that future exodus, he is not seeing what is not

present in Hosea, but what is actually present in the context.

Second, the use of sonship language for both a corporate entity and for an individual

representative of that entity is also widely established. This goes all the way back to Genesis 3:15 where

three different conflicts are described, a conflict between the serpent and the woman, a conflict

between the corporate seed of the serpent and the corporate seed of the woman, and a conflict

between the individual seed of the woman and the serpent. It continues when Abram is promised that

all the families of the earth will be blessed through him (Gen 12:3). Abrahams seed will be as numerous

as the stars of the heavens or the sand of the sea (Gen 22:17) but ultimately will find expression in one

individual. In Exodus 4:22-23 the language of sonship is applied to corporate Israel at the time of the

exodus. There are undoubtedly multiple purposes behind Gods deliverance of Israel from the land of

Egypt, but arguably primary among them was the preservation and establishment of a people through

whom the individual son would eventually come. This is perhaps reflected in the Balaam oracles in

Numbers 23-24 when Balaam foresees future blessing both for the corporate body of Israel and for their

king. God promised David concerning his son that I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son

(2 Sam. 7:14a ESV). This clearly applied initially to Solomon, who was responsible for building the

temple, then to a string of human Davidic rulers of whom it is said, When he commits iniquity, I will

discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men (2 Sam. 7:14b ESV), and then

ultimately to one of whom it is said, Your throne shall be established forever (2 Sam. 7:16b ESV).

Hosea builds upon this idea. In Hosea 3:5, he speaks of a Davidic king who will rule the people in the

latter days and this Davidic king cannot be far from view in chapter 11 when Hosea speaks of the

historical exodus as a model for a future deliverance. Matthew begins his gospel by referring to Jesus as

the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matt 1:1 ESV). He is the fulfillment of the promise to David of a

son who would reign forever the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham of a seed through whom the

Myron C. Kauk Page 10

whole world would be blessed. Matthew 2:15 is yet one more instance where Jesus is identified as the

individual son who represents the nation of Israel as a whole.40

Thirdly, the fact that Matthew says Jesus went down to Egypt in order to fulfill what was

spoken by Hosea does not require that the Hosea text be considered a prophecy in the strictest sense.

According to Turner,

Biblical fulfillment in Matthew includes ethical, historical, and prophetic connections. These categories are not discrete but overlapping; individual fulfillments may contain elements of all three aspects. At times the ethical element is preeminent (3:15; 5:17). At other times fulfillment of biblical prediction is primary (4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 21:4; 26:54, 56). But probably the most prevalent aspect of fulfillment in Matthew concerns historical patterns (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 13:14, 35; 23:32; 27:9). Events in biblical history anticipate events in Jesuss ministry in that Jesus fills them with new significance.41

Carson notes that, Not only in Matthew but elsewhere in the NT, the history and laws of the OT are

perceived to have prophetic significance.42

But as has been seen, Hosea 11:1 is not a mere historical reflection. It is a reference to the

historical exodus, but it is not a reference to the exodus, pure and simple.43 There is a forward looking

aspect to Hoseas reference to the exodus so that the historical exodus anticipates a greater deliverance

that is yet to come. Jesus is rightly identified as the representative head of that greater deliverance.

The solution to the difficulties associated with Matthew 2:15 has come through greater attention to the

larger context in Hosea and it can be seen that it is not Matthew, but his critics, who are guilty of

reading the text too atomistically and without sufficient concern for the overall context.

40

It is significant that Matthew does not follow the LXX in rendering out

of Egypt I called his children, but more accurately renders the Hebrew with a singular out of Egypt I called my son. 41

Turner, Matthew, 25. 42

D. A. Carson, Matthew, in The Expositors Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:92. 43

Blomberg, Matthew, 7.

Myron C. Kauk Page 11

Bibliography Baker, David. Typology and the Christian Use of the Old Testament. In The Right Doctrine from the

Wrong Texts? Edited by G. K. Beale, 313-330. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

Beale, G. K. The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15. In The Inerrant Word. Edited by John MacArthur, 210-230. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016.

Beale, G. K. Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012.

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 1-109. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. Nashville: B & H, 1992.

Carson, D. A. Matthew. In The Expositors Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, 8:1-599. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Chou, Abner. Is Inerrancy Inert? Closing the Hermenetical Loophole. In The Inerrant Word. Edited by John MacArthur, 231-243. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016.

Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody, 1989.

Enns, Peter. Fuller Meaning, Single Goal: A Christotelic Approach to the New Testament Use of the Old in its First-Century Interpretive Environment. In Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, 167-271. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody, 1986.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1-13. Dallas: Word, 1993.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago: Moody, 1985.

Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004.

Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

McCartney, Dan and Peter Enns. Matthew and Hosea: A Response to John Sailhamer. Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001): 97-105.

Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. In Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. Edited by James R. A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 29-58. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Myron C. Kauk Page 12

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Osborne, Grant R. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

Pickup, Martin. New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament: The Theological Rationale of Midrashic Exegesis. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51.2 (2008): 353-381.

Sailhamer, John H. Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15. Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001): 87-96.

Thomas, Robert L. The New Testament Use of the Old Testament. The Masters Seminary Journal 13.1 (2002): 79-98.

Turner, David L. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

Virkler, Henry A. Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.

Walton, John H. Inspired Subjectivity and Hermeneutical Objectivity. The Masters Seminary Journal 13.1 (2002): 65-77.